|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper:
from
pittsburghlive.com
on
July 13, 2008
View comments about this article!
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As far as I know, there is no Federal law saying amateur radio operators must be permitted to have/own/erect a tower.
While it can be an asset, a tower is not necessary to carry out amateur radio commnications. An antenna however is. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies?
-
Quote 1: Mills said the decision was "very disappointing" and the ruling is effectively prohibiting his amateur radio tower, a violation of federal law."
Quote 2: It has the effect of precluding amateur radio communications from that property and federal law is clear you cannot do that," Lazaroff said.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go. This is a continuation of the poor guy's tower erection.
Apparently, the appeal board wants to be capricious and arbitrary in their denial of what their staff recommended as adequate. His planting of fast growing holly bushes (that according to him will reach 20 feet or more in no time) will hide the tower from the neighbor's view.
He's been reasonable. The neighbors and the appeal board have not. Its time for federal court.
That said, while I know that his counsel is a ham, where is our ole ARRL? Are they going to get involved here or be silent and sit back and watch like they've done on 50 previous attempts so that individual hams have to dig into their pockets to pay the high cost of fighting this cr*p?
Since prevailing would benefit all amateurs, not just the ham being unfairly punished, ARRL needs to participate in the process.
Then again, since PRB-1 is now federal law, why can't the FCC prosecute the case in federal court and/or stay the judgement of the appeal board, since the zoning appeals board violated an FCC regulation by not providing a reasonable accommodation?
If the FCC were to prosecute this, wouldn't a precedent be created?
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
Leeds, AL
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper
|
|
|
by K7AAT on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I commiserate with this guy's problem on the tower issue, and I agree that the township's rules are vague, I also agree with the township that additional screening will not preclude his communications. Heck, even removing the tower will not preclude his communications. He apparently was doing fine with the roof mount system he had for years previously. I see no reason on his property he could operate successfully with the old roof top system if he eventually loses this case on appeals. Google Earth shows that there are few obstructions to clear that would require a 53' tower.
Just my opinion.
Ed K7AAT
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"where is our ole ARRL?"
It is in Newington CT.
For all you know, his lawyer has been helped by The League.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unless they just decided to, he told me that they hadn't done anything. We've had a few email exchanges. His attorney is a ham, though, which is good.
Yes, they sit in Newington. Sawing Zs. Business as usual.
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by K7AAT on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL is not, and never has been a free legal services company. Maybe if the dues were quadrupled, they could become one and provide legal representation to the hundreds of cased like this that pop up all over the country.
The ARRL DOES provide a rather comprehensive legal package, and even some advice, IF IT IS ASKED FOR.
Ed K7AAT
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps you missed my point. It would seem that an organization that presents itself as the National Associatio for Amateur Radio would be anxious to establish a precedent in an important case such as this that could be used to make any future reoccurrences unnecessary. Thereby reducing the monetary sacrifice needed to fight such malarky.
But, that appears to have escaped them in favor of sitting back and doing nothing but publishing successful outcomes in their media.
So, it is, so long as they behave as they have for the most part, not the NAAR as it claims, but a mere publishing house primarily interested in selling paper.
And, to think the poor guy bought a Life Membership in ARRL to boot.
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
ARRL Member (so I can provide it advice and counsel when I think it needs it)
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by K7AAT on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PRB1 is not a law codified into US law, it is merely a ruling by the FCC. These can be easily changed by the FCC or overturned in Court.
Given the wide disparity in the nature of various cases throughout the country, and the fact that this ruling could easily be overturned in Court, I am glad the ARRL has chosen not to waste membership money on the shaky proposition of attempting to set a National Precedence.
I hope that guy did not buy his life membership in the ARRL with the expectation of automatic Legal support if he needed it. Its not what he, or I, are paying dues for. I AM paying dues with the expectation that the ARRL will work with law makers to eventually address this issue by law.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A local ordinance does not set precedence.
When I lived in Becket MA, we didn't have to get a permit to install a tower.
Town roads were maintained by the town; county roads maintained by the county.
I needed to get a building permit to install my tower here in Pima county. I live on a Pima county approved, public road that the county will not maintain.
There isn't anything like a small town's local government to demonstrate that the only rights we have are the ones we can afford to bring to court.
Bob
|
| |
|
PRB-1: Not a Decisive Directive
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It has always come down to that elusive little phrase "reasonable accommodation"...
PRB-1 is a non-binding resolution...
Raf
|
| |
|
The Herd Mentality
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a joke! These folks all have cell phone antennas up the kazoo, but they don't care a rodent's posterior about that. No sir! They don't "need" the cell phone towers hidden behind hanging plants.
If this ham can't put his tower up where he wants it, he should paint his house purple and orange and fill his front lawn with pink flamingos.
You only life once, hopefully as our forefathers said, "By the grace of God free and independent."
It takes a village to dumb down folks to orange colored toy water pistols, save the bears, global warming, and screen the antennas with carbon footprint saving plants. Al Gore and pals laugh all the way to the bank in their gas guzzling SUVs.
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by N7WS on July 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7ETA writes:
I needed to get a building permit to install my tower here in Pima county. I live on a Pima county approved, public road that the county will not maintain.
Far be it for me to defend Pima County, AZ, but let me add some comments.
I have permits for two towers, neither of which is a "building" permit. They are issued by county developmental services, commonly known as the building department, but they required nothing more than a site plan showing setbacks and a cursory look at flood plains. No inspections are required and the last one cost all of two bucks and a little sweet-talking the flood plain guy.
I have not exercised the second permit for I acquired it only as "grandfather insurance" at the time (2004) the county was proposing new, more restrictive rules.
That effort was begun after an acquaintance of mine erected a 90' tower on or near a ridge top in the Tucson Mountains. This was entirely within the rules, if not necessarily a wise thing to do considering the neighbors. A picture of the tower made the front page of the local newspaper, with, as I recall a less than flattering caption.
There is an extremely aggressive homeowners group in the area who brought political pressure on the Country Board of Supervisors to enact an ordinance that would limit the height of towers to the maximum height allowed a residential building, 35'. (This is not your usual HOA, where you have agreed to CC&Rs, but an affluent group, with some politically connected members, that is concerned with protecting the lifestyle in a semi-rural area of several square miles. I often agree with them although I don't live in their neighborhood.)
When the ham community got wind of this we chipped in to pay for a lawyer (well known for dealing with the county). I heard this cost in the neighborhood of $10K; it cost me $100. Some of our guys met with the Board members before the ordinance was brought up for vote.
http://www.az-arrl.org/web/News/RPT04apr.pdf
When a hearing was scheduled to hear the proposed ordinance the audience was primarily hams. One numskull (allegedly an engineer) was spokesman for the homeowners. He tried to claim that with cell phone technology we didn't need towers any more and similar nonsense.
The lawyer did her legal thing and then the hams took turns.
For the ham side we had a local Red Cross guy, spokespeople for all kinds of emergency aid groups, MARS, and so on. All of them made a case for hams ability to assist during emergencies. One of our guys actually works for Pima County Communications and he spoke about the possibility of a breakdown of public communications in emergencies. (He was grilled intensely about whether he was "on the clock" while lobbying county government. He had taken a vacation day.)
We even had DXers talking about handling traffic during Mexican earthquakes, and other world emergencies. All in all, we made ourselves indispensable during emergencies and our towers indispensable things for our ability to perform during these operations.
When the vote was taken the ordinance was voted down, and at least one member of the board made a little thank you speech.
These are politicians, and they don't give a damn whether we can work the next P5 operation (got it already) and that we need a 90' tower to do it. But let them think that a communication failure during an emergency that could have been handled by a ham jeopardizes public safety and they know on which side of the bread there is butter (and votes).
This many not be applicable or too late for the case at hand, but might well be remembered in the future.
This took a concerted (and expensive) effort by a lot of folks, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has the guy ever gone to the zoning board for them to define screening after the screening was deemed unacceptable?
Seems to me that if his proposal for screening is not adequate that they should be able to provide acceptable examples.
Also, since the guy installed the stuff in good faith with initial agreement and permits from the zoning board; if he is forced to remove the installation he should be able to sue for compensation.
Really the ball is in the zoning boards court for them to dictate the terms of screening. Then if that requirement becomes onerous, then he would have recourse to appeal in Federal Court in regards to PRB1.
To the few who seem to feel that he was OK, let him go back to his roof top triband; I thought we lived in a free country with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by W8JI on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's more important to bash the ARRL than it is to make sense and defend someone's rights to do what he reasonably wants on his property.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is it more important to bash the ARRL...."
To some hams, it is--but consider this. If the ARRL got extensively involved in EVERY antenna/tower case they have been asked to, there would be nothing--that is no time, no money, and no people--left for the other things they do. And the better amount of these cases would still not get any help from them!
All the ARRL usually does is provide the names of lawyers in the area who have experience with that type of case, and provide research and support as they are able to do. That much still takes quite a bit of time and manpower to accomplish.
It looks like this guy planted fast growing holly bushes that will taks a shorter time to grow than other screening material, but the neighbors aren't satisfied. They want the bushes to grow overnight, and as far as the side that can't be screened--well, all that can be said is that no matter what is done, some people just won't be happy.
Now, to PRB-1, it IS codified in the FCC Part 97 regulations, specifically Part 97.15 (b). It is NOT just a guideline or an FCC ruling. But it IS purposely vague--giving the state and local government bodies much latitude in how it is enforced.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by KF7CG on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The kicker in this will be when he finds out that he also can't go back to the roof mount because his application for a building permit for modification to the home will now be rejected!
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by N3JBH on July 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI "It's more important to bash the ARRL than it is to make sense and defend someone's rights to do what he reasonably wants on his property."
Sadly Tom that is exactly the same type folks that live in Chucks neighborhood. He lives on a lane named Regola Drive. Now i wont say what has been going on in the neighborhood. But i think if folks google the Name Regola And maybe add (senator) too it the find out what some Influential home owners can get away with there.
What this man (Chuck needs) is us to back him not bash the arrl.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by W3WN on July 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM/4: Just FYI:
Not only is W3YNI's lawyer a ham (K3AIR) but he IS the ARRL Volunteer Counsel for WPA.
So Lee, if you're still actually wondering "where is the ARRL?" (rather than just taking a cheap shot)... they're involved through Mike (which is the way the system's supposed to work!). And Mike knows who to talk to, and so forth.
And Mike's good. I can personally vouch for him (I'd tell you why, but I'm bound by a non-disclosure).
Also, keep in mind that there's more to the story than what the newspaper reporter printed. Suffice to say... it ain't over yet!
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Improper
|
|
|
by KG4FQG on July 19, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This is going to hurt a bit." That was my dentist's warning and I'm passing that warning to you.
If you willingly signed into a restrictive CCR you don't deserve any help from anyone though it would be nice if it was more forthcoming, especially from those who say they are in this for you(read 'ARRL' here). If you can't afford to litigate in America, you're not going to get anywhere with your arguments. Even then justice often goes to those with the best lawyer(s), not to who is right. And as always, judges tend to side with the goverment folks who they have to live with after you're case is over and you're gone.
We would fare better if we would do better to stay in the public eye in emergencies and events where our true worth is evident, but few of us bother to do those things. And that attitude goes into the ARRL where an unnamed section manager told me "I have absolutely no interest in emergency communications. Zero." So the cards are stacked against you from the outset, and if Hamming is important to you then it has to be YOU that thinks ahead of time, that gives of their time for public service work, that gets the deadwood out of the ARRL, and that pressures the FCC and their legislators to allow us our hobby with minimum restrictions. Of course you could do as one Ham I know did: After getting himself elected as President of his HOA, he went home and quietly put up his reasonable but disallowed antenna....with no objections after ten years.
"Hey Doc, that didn't hurt a bit, it hurt like ****! How about being more honest with me the next time? I can handle it better that way even if most folks can't."
73
Phil
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3WN's still trying:"Not only is W3YNI's lawyer a ham (K3AIR) but he IS the ARRL Volunteer Counsel for WPA."
Really? Then, what Chuck told me was a lie. (That he was paying for legal services.) That his attorney, also a ham, offered him a reduced rate.
Apparently you know little of the "volunteer" definition as it applies to ARRL counselors. The only thing about volunteering that is relevant, is to have their name placed on the list. They still charge for their services. *Pro bono" (for free) its not.
"So Lee, if you're still actually wondering "where is the ARRL?" (rather than just taking a cheap shot)... they're involved through Mike (which is the way the system's supposed to work!). And Mike knows who to talk to, and so forth."
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Maybe you did. My comment was predicated on the usual "nobody home in Newington" approach. Or, K1ZZZZZZZZZZZZ is snoring so loudly that's all we hear.
ARRL should be sponsoring this fight. Paying all fees and 1) going to court to get a writ to force the enforcement of a federal regulation (47CFR97.15(b)) since the responsible agency isn't interested in citing the Zoning Appeal Board for a blatant, intentional violation; and 2) then, after the court trial and fine levied for the violation, filing perhaps a civil damage claim.
All ARRL has done historically, is to sit back and continue sawing Z's. If the ham later prevails, after 10s of thousands spent in legal fees out of his or her pocket, they paste the success stories in the ARRL Letter, together with how much it cost and how the court didn't award attorney's fees.
If your reason for acting "gagged" is worthwhile, I guess we'll hear about it after its all over, won't we.
ARRL should be doing all it possibly can to stop these fiefdoms from acting contrary to federal law. Unless an example is made out of one of these that is large enough in civil penalty that other planning and zoning entities will take notice, its just more wasted effort.
Towers are expensive enough. And, finding a parcel without deed restrictions isn't all that easy these days. Hams shouldn't have to be prepared to pay another 30 grand in legal fees on top of the cost of the tower and antennas just to have one. But, that's what its coming to, thanks to this example.
Wake up, ARRL, and stop acting like a magazine subscription house!!
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7AAT said:"PRB1 is not a law codified into US law, it is merely a ruling by the FCC. These can be easily changed by the FCC or overturned in Court."
Ed, you and everyone reading this needs to look up 47CFR97.15(b). I won't waste my time cutting and pasting. You can find it yourselves on the Web.
PRB-1 IS a codified regulation, as noted above.
"Given the wide disparity in the nature of various cases throughout the country, and the fact that this ruling could easily be overturned in Court, I am glad the ARRL has chosen not to waste membership money on the shaky proposition of attempting to set a National Precedence."
Not a waste of money at all. A waste of money is something like an all expenses paid junket for about 8 ARRL folks to Brazilia for an IARU region 2 meeting when it could have all been teleconferenced to Newington.
"I hope that guy did not buy his life membership in the ARRL with the expectation of automatic Legal support if he needed it. Its not what he, or I, are paying dues for. I AM paying dues with the expectation that the ARRL will work with law makers to eventually address this issue by law."
Work with lawmakers? Who might that be? They haven't been able to lobby their way through a "slam dunk." ARRL COO Harold Kramer stood before the House Energy and Commerce Comittee after Hurricane Katrina, and had ZERO to suggest about addressing impediments to present and future amateur radio communications. No mention of antenna restrictive covenants; no mention of municipalities placing unreasonable burdens on antennas; no mention of scourges to HF communications like BPL. I could go on.
If you meant working with FCC lawmakers, well, don't look now, but ARRL spent quite a bit of your magazine subscription and more in federal court to obtain a remand of the Part 15 BPL regulations. And, was that because ARRL was able to "work with those lawmakers?"
73.
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by K7AAT on July 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7AAT said:"PRB1 is not a law codified into US law, it is merely a ruling by the FCC. These can be easily changed by the FCC or overturned in Court."
W6EM said: "Ed, you and everyone reading this needs to look up 47CFR97.15(b). I won't waste my time cutting and pasting. You can find it yourselves on the Web.
PRB-1 IS a codified regulation, as noted above."
K7AAT responds with: Like I said above, PRB1 is not codified into law. Its an FCC Regulation, subject to change by the FCC, and not necessarily the Courts. There is a difference between laws and regulations.
Furthermore, the claim that ARRL should be spending the 10's of thousands of dollars to support these cases is ludicrous. There are 100's of these little cases popping up all over the country. You expect the ARRL to spend millions on these? To what end? Even if they win a local case, no local government in its right mind is going to pursue such cases all the way to the Supreme Court and thus there is little chance there could ever be a precedent set. I stand by what I've already said.
Ed K7AAT
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7AAT:"Like I said above, PRB1 is not codified into law. Its an FCC Regulation, subject to change by the FCC, and not necessarily the Courts. There is a difference between laws and regulations. "
I'm no lawyer, but, promulgated federal regulations have the standing of law. Breaching them constitutes a violation of the Communications Act. Admittedly, most are misdemeanors. But, enforceable just the same.
"Furthermore, the claim that ARRL should be spending the 10's of thousands of dollars to support these cases is ludicrous. There are 100's of these little cases popping up all over the country."
You must be a selective reader. The reason I said "SUPPORT THIS CASE AS AN EXAMPLE" was to end all of the 100s of these "little cases" as you call them that would likely cost each individual involved 10's of thousands to retain one of the "ARRL Volunteer Counsels."
"Even if they win a local case, no local government in its right mind is going to pursue such cases all the way to the Supreme Court and thus there is little chance there could ever be a precedent set. I stand by what I've already said."
Again, think publicity, if not precedent. Planners have a national association. A major monetary penalty and a fine for breach of a federal regulation will get coverage that will be noticed by planning staffers.
Plus, the FCC cites lots of prior case examples, and I doubt all cited were necessarily appealed.
But, don't take my word for it. Ask your local United States Attorney if promulgated regulations by federal agencies have the standing of laws. You might be surprised what you hear. Especially when the United States Code authorizes derivative regulations.
73.
Lee
W6EM/
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by K7AAT on July 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My comment on the PRB1 "regulation" has been misunderstood. I never meant to imply that it doesn't have the force of law behind it. What I did attempt to imply was that it is easier to overturn such a regulation, either in Court, or possibly within the FCC..... to our negative benefit. There is a good risk that pursuing such cases would backfire on us.
Secondly, I disagree with you on on your belief that a few wins locally will effect other local governments. I've had enough contact with such to know that they are so generally wrapped up in their own righteousness that they seldom give any heed in what's going on in other localities.
Just my opinion, but I'd hate to see the ARRL waste large sums of money on this.... and apparently they agree.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Tower Permit in Penn Twp. Ruled Impr
|
|
|
by W3WN on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM Said: "W3WN's still trying:"Not only is W3YNI's lawyer a ham (K3AIR) but he IS the ARRL Volunteer Counsel for WPA."
Really? Then, what Chuck told me was a lie. (That he was paying for legal services.) That his attorney, also a ham, offered him a reduced rate.
Apparently you know little of the "volunteer" definition as it applies to ARRL counselors. The only thing about volunteering that is relevant, is to have their name placed on the list. They still charge for their services. *Pro bono" (for free) its not. < snip >"
Lee, once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
Chuck did not tell you a lie, and you know it. I resent the implication that I am calling him a liar.
YOU clearly either do not understand what a "Volunteer Counsel" is, or you are deliberately making misleading posts on the subject to fit you anti-ARRL agenda. The entire purpose of the Volunteer Counsel, which HAS been explained to you in the past (both here and on QRZ) is to provide an evaluation of a ham's legal situation. The "Volunteer" part means that the lawyer involved, who is most often a ham himself, has volunteered to provide this consultation. It does not mean, and never has meant, that the lawyer has agreed to provide free legal services ad infinitum ad nauseum.
You have further assumed, as usual, that ARRL HQ is not involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. (How do I know? I talked with Mike. After all, he is my attorney as well...) The details of that are not public knowledge... it has to do with "attorney-client privilege"... so I can't tell you what they are, as Mike can not tell me. He has ethics.
...or do you think that's just a smoke screen? Great, you want an attorney to violate privilege and possibly lose his license, just to satisfy your curiousity?
The important thing we should be concentrating on is that we should be supporting Chuck in his fight, and we should be watching the case carefully in case another municipality somewhere tries to do something like it.
You'd rather slant this towards your anti-ARRL campaign, and a little smearing of people along the way, well, I guess that those means are justified too as long as you get the ends you seek, right?
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3WN:"Apparently you know little of the "volunteer" definition as it applies to ARRL counselors. The only thing about volunteering that is relevant, is to have their name placed on the list. They still charge for their services. *Pro bono" (for free) its not."
You know, its funny. The rest of the world thinks that the word "volunteer" means for free, without remuneration. Oh, maybe for expenses.
Since I live in Alabama, Tide fans have an appropriate limeric: "There aren't any prostitutes in Tennessee, they're all volunteers." That pretty much sums it up, as far as I'm concerned. Use the word volunteer, and it implies FREE. Apparently, to everyone else but attorneys.
"Lee, once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
Chuck did not tell you a lie, and you know it. I resent the implication that I am calling him a liar."
No, he didn't. I said it since you perpetrated the misconstruence of the word "volunteer" so as to make sound like the ARRL was helping his situation. They aren't.
"YOU clearly either do not understand what a "Volunteer Counsel" is, or you are deliberately making misleading posts on the subject to fit you anti-ARRL agenda. The entire purpose of the Volunteer Counsel, which HAS been explained to you in the past (both here and on QRZ) is to provide an evaluation of a ham's legal situation. The "Volunteer" part means that the lawyer involved, who is most often a ham himself, has volunteered to provide this consultation. It does not mean, and never has meant, that the lawyer has agreed to provide free legal services ad infinitum ad nauseum."
Every reasonable professional, in his or her practice, provides free estimates. Most attorneys included.
"You have further assumed, as usual, that ARRL HQ is not involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. (How do I know? I talked with Mike. After all, he is my attorney as well...) The details of that are not public knowledge... it has to do with "attorney-client privilege"... so I can't tell you what they are, as Mike can not tell me. He has ethics."
What the H*** does this have to do with Newington's involvement? Just because an attorney or engineer's name is on a list published by Newington doesn't mean Newington is doing a damn thing specific to this or any other case.
.....
"The important thing we should be concentrating on is that we should be supporting Chuck in his fight, and we should be watching the case carefully in case another municipality somewhere tries to do something like it."
What I have advocated here is just what you say, but your words don't suggest a means to an end to this hemoraging of ham dollars in legal fees. Mine does.
Publishing successful challenges in the ARRL Letter doesn't achieve anything besides ARRL flag waving without merit.
ARRL needs to take Chuck's fight to a platform where it will gain national attention in planning staff and planning commission circles. A serious fine and perhaps a follow-on damage suit might just do that.
Sitting back and not demanding enforcement of 47CFR97.15(b)will not accomplish that. ARRL should pursue a writ of enforcement in federal court so that the zoning board will be cited and hopefully fined for its acts in taking back Chuck's permit.
Chuck shouldn't have to pay for that, since the intent would be to mandate law enforcement since apparently the FCC isn't interested in doing it. More than just asking the court to interpret his situation.
Anyway, I'm tired of this somewhat senseless exchange. The League's asleep as usual, and you're running around trying to keep the shutters drawn.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: Where's the ole' ARRL?
|
|
|
by W3WN on July 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lee, I'm not arguing with you in duplicate both here and on QRZ.
I am not going to waste time arguing with you on what the Volunteer Counsel is or isn't. You've clearly made up your mind that it has to fit your narrow definition, something it never has. Obviously they should have consulted you before using the term "volunteer" since you object to it's use in a way that you don't approve of, but you can take that up with Newington.
You asked what the "h" Mike's being the Volunteer Counsel had to do with Newington. You will have to forgive me if I don't recall off the top of my head if I said this here, or over on the QRZ thread... I know for a FACT that Mike HAS been in discussions with other ARRL legal people, and others at the HQ level, on this matter. Whether or not any or all of those people are physically located in Connecticut is something I never asked, and is pretty irrelevant. The point is, you are complaining that HQ staff isn't involved. But that is an assumption. It's not fact.
So what's your beef? That the ARRL isn't bankrolling the legal fight?
How do you know?
Do you know all the details? Do you know if W3YNI has exhausted his efforts with the Zoning Board and township council yet? Do you know if it's reached the point of W3YNI going back to court yet?
Do you even know if this is a PRB-1 situation yet?
Or are you just using this as another excuse to rake the ARRL over the coals for your own amusement?
You can throw all the aspersions at me you want, but it won't change the fact that you're basing your complaint on a lot of assumptions.
This isn't about the ARRL. This is about making sure that W3YNI doesn't get buffaloed by a zoning board cowed by neighbors with political connections. As someone else pointed out, and again forgive me if I don't recall if it's in this thread or the other, the name of the street he lives on is an important clue... and if you don't know why, append "State Senator" to the beginning of it and try again.
You seem to enjoy trying to knock me & others down, and you seem to like changing the subject (hookers?) rather than stick to the facts.
But this isn't about me, or you, or the ARRL. It's about Chuck and his fight. Or have you forgotten that in your zeal?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Radio Operators Ham It Up in Estero Shelter:
Emergency Communication Network Tested:
Supplement to Digital Speech Within 100 Hz Bandwidth:
A 'Ham' Remembers Going to War:
Radio Stations Turn Watch Towers:
|
|
|
